Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection – Page 19

Robinson v. City of Arkansas, Kansas, No. 10-1431-JAR-GLR, 2012 WL 603576 (D. Kan. Feb. 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing the sufficiency of defendant?s search for responsive ESI, among other discovery disputes, court found that defendant failed to conduct a reasonable search and ordered additional searching as specified by the court and that defendant produce mirror images of the computers and external drives of a former supervisor for defendant that was particularly relevant to the litigation (the court called the failure to search his computers ?inexcusable and inexplicable?); court granted protective order precluding defendant?s expert from requirement to produce hardware (computers, etc.) already subject to production by defendant pursuant to court?s order where such duplication was unnecessary and would unnecessarily increase costs

Nature of Case: civil rights and employment law

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Lake Village Healthcare Ctr., LLC v. Hatchett, 407 S.W. 3d 521 (Ark. 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Trial court did not err when it struck part of defendants’ answers as sanction for discovery violations where trial court’s order specifically detailed the opportunities afforded defendants to either comply with the email request or furnish a basis upon which the court could determine they were trying to comply with the request, and trial court found that defendants failed to produce the emails in response to the discovery request, failed to produce the emails when ordered by the court, failed to timely notify the court of compliance problems, failed to furnish sufficient information of their good faith efforts, and failed to furnish information regarding when compliance could be expected

Nature of Case: Wrongful death, negligence, breach of fiduciary and confidential duty, medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Sloan Valve Co. v. Zurn Indus., Inc., No. 10-cv-204, 2012 WL 1886353 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Finding defendants? search efforts inadequate, court ordered discovery re-opened and that defendant conduct specific additional discovery, including additional searches on specific repositories, and provide specific information regarding how its search efforts were conducted and by whom; the court also provided a good discussion of preservation obligations, but ultimately concluded that additional information was necessary to make a determination regarding the reasonableness of defendants efforts; ultimately, court declined to impose drastic sanctions, but ordered additional discovery and that defendants pay monetary sanctions (attorneys? fees and cost)

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

FTC v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4888473 (D.D.C. Oct. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where FTC sought to compel defendant to search for and produce responsive ESI on backup tapes, the court resolved the question of what standard must be applied to properly analyze the producing party?s claims of burden (Rule 26(b)(2)(B) ?good cause? to overcome the burden shown by the responding party v. the standard established in FTC v. Texaco Inc., 555 F.2d 862 (DC Cir 1977) ?a showing that compliance with the subpoena ?threatens to unduly disrupt or serious hinder normal operations of a business??) and determined that in light of the narrowed request, the defendant had not established a sufficient burden and thus ordered defendant to conduct a search of the at-issue backup tapes and to produce any non-privileged materials

Nature of Case: Administrative Subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

MGA Entm?t, Inc. v. Nat?l Prods. Ltd., No. CV 10-07083 JAK (SSx), 2012 WL 12886446 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Plaintiffs sought to compel production of responsive documents relating to Defendant?s sale of products carrying the Little Tikes brand. Defendant had attached documents to its opposition motion that it had not previously produced to Plaintiff, which prompted the current motion. Plaintiffs requested that Defendant ?identify all custodians of documents referring or relating to Defendant?s sale? and conduct a ?forensic analysis of all Defendants? document custodians? to locate responsive documents. The court denied Plaintiff?s request for a forensic analysis, noting ?that the motion is based only on speculation and lacks conclusive proof that responsive documents are actually being withheld.? However the court found that Defendant?s ESI searching ?may have been inadequate? and were performed ?without guidance or supervision from an attorney on how to conduct a search.? The court ordered a meet and confer to identify custodians and agree on search terms, the Defendant must then perform the searches of ESI on Defendants’ computers/systems (supervised by an attorney who must then submit a declaration) and produce responsive documents.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., No. 2:11-md-2233, 2012 WL 4361430 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed a number of discovery issues related to Plaintiffs? motion to compel production and, among other things: 1) ordered production of the parameters of Defendants? searches where evidence indicated the possibility that Defendants made unilateral decisions to limit their search/production, where the parties disputed the meaning of certain search terms, and where the dearth of emails produced ?weighed in favor? of disclosing the search efforts; and 2) ordered defense counsel to certify that they had completed a reasonable inquiry and provided examples of the sort of information that should be included in such a certification

Nature of Case: Product Liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI; search parameters; certification of reasonable inquiry

Coquina Invs. v. Rothstein, No. 10-60786-Civ., 2012 WL 3202273 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that counsel for Defendant ?acted negligently in failing to comply with its discovery obligations in this case? and that Defendant ?acted willfully in failing to comply with its discovery obligations and assist its outside counsel to properly litigate this case? and ordered that certain adverse facts were established for purposes of this action and that counsel and Defendant pay Plaintiff?s reasonable attorney?s fees and costs associated with its fourth and fifth motion for sanctions; discovery violations identified included: late (including after trial) production of relevant documents, counsel?s failure to produce relevant evidence ?in a manner that preserved the documents qualities? (i.e., with highly relevant formatting changes (e.g. no color) and without metadata), both Defendant and counsel?s failure to ?conduct an adequate search,? and the conspicuous absence of Defendant?s in-house counsel in assisting or supervising the litigation; court also noted that ?[i]n many ways, this is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth? where the defense included two firms, hundreds of lawyers, and a consultant that only one firm was aware of, for example

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Davis v. Rouse, No. WDQ-08-cv-3106, 2012 WL 3059569 (D. Md. July 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant produced more than 61,000 pages of emails but, when faced with Plaintiff?s motion for spoliation sanctions, could not explain how the search for ESI had been conducted (by a vendor) and subsequently produced only 11,411 pages of emails after being ordered to re-run the search, the court imposed sanctions of reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff?s counsel to review the initial large production of emails containing many non-responsive documents and found counsel for plaintiff was also entitled to recover ?some proportional and reasonable? attorneys? fees and costs for litigating the underlying motion for sanctions which brought the overproduction to light

Nature of Case: Allegations of assault pursuant to 42 USC 1983

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Chura v. Delmar Gardens of Lenexa, Inc., No. 11-2090-CM-DJW, 2012 WL 940270 (D. Kan. Mar. 20, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that ?Defendant?s failure to produce any ESI, such as emails, attachments, exhibits, and word processing documents raise[d] justifiable concerns that Defendant may have 1) failed to preserve relevant evidence, or 2) failed to conduct a reasonable search for ESI responsive to Plaintiff?s discovery requests? and thus scheduled an evidentiary hearing and ordered Defendant to be prepared to present evidence on its preservation and search efforts (specific topics identified in court?s order)

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Miscellaneous ESI

ADT Secs. Servs. Inc. v. Pinnacle Sec. LLC, No. 10 C 7467, 2012 WL 7170633 (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant argued that its failure to issue a specific litigation hold was mitigated by prior imposition of a no-delete policy which would have prevented any loss of evidence, the court determined it needed additional information on the scope of the policy and ordered defendant to provide information to determine if the scope of the policy was sufficiently broad and how it was communicated to employees; where defendant acknowledged that it did not search certain individual computers because all files created were to be saved in the ?My Documents? folder which was saved to a network server, the court noted the lack of assurance that employees followed the default settings and that they did not save ESI in folders outside of ?My Documents? and thus ordered a search of particular employees? computers using Plaintiff?s key word search terms

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Adequacy of Search/Identification or Collection